The email address in "Contact AK: Ads and more" above will vanish from November 2018.

PRIVACY POLICY

FAKE ASSI AK71 IN HWZ.

Featured blog.

1M50 CPF millionaire in 2021!

Ever since the CPFB introduced a colorful pie chart of our CPF savings a few years ago, I would look forward to mine every year like a teena...

Past blog posts now load week by week. The old style created a problem for some as the system would load 50 blog posts each time. Hope the new style is better. Search archives in box below.

Archives

"E-book" by AK

Second "e-book".

Another free "e-book".

4th free "e-book".

Pageviews since Dec'09

Financially free and Facebook free!

Recent Comments

ASSI's Guest bloggers

Showing posts with label cityspring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cityspring. Show all posts

Keppel and CitySpring Trusts: An unequal marriage?

Monday, November 24, 2014

I got into K-Green Trust (now renamed Keppel Infrastructure Trust) a few years ago at $1.11 per unit. I was attracted by its zero gearing and relatively decent distribution yield.

Over time, I received a DPU of almost 8c a year from K-Green Trust. So, with a closing price of $1.09 per unit in the last trading session, I have achieved a return of about 7% per annum which is not too bad for an income investment.


With zero gearing, together with other unit holders, I was waiting for K-Green Trust to gear up and acquire some DPU accretive investments but after waiting for 4 years, nothing really happened. Well, that is not until now.

Honestly, I don't have good feelings towards the merger of K-Green Trust and CitySpring Infrastructure Trust. To be honest, again, this probably has to do with the experience I had with CitySpring and I shared my thoughts here in my blog many years ago.

It would have been much cleaner for K-Green Trust, which I believe to be stronger financially than CitySpring, to acquire assets on its own and grow its DPU. The merger complicates things. Well, at least, it does for me. The first thought that came to my mind is that CitySpring's weaker balance sheet will strengthen with the merger.


Granted that K-Green Trust's assets have limited lifespans but it is like a good cup of coffee that is slowly being finished. We just have to top it up with more good coffee. CitySpring, to me, is coffee that is not so good. Now, these two cups of coffee are being mixed up.

It is easy to see that K-Green Trust has had a better track record compared to CitySpring's in the last few years. CitySpring has had two rights issues and seen its DPU reduced by more than 50% in the process over the years. What? They took more money from unit holders and it resulted in less income distribution per unit? Pui!

Now, with the proposed merger, existing unit holders of K-Green Trust will receive 2.106 new CitySpring units for every K-Green Trust unit owned. Oh, my. I am going to be a unit holder of CitySpring's again after so many years?


I lack the inclination to dig into the numbers as I am disappointed and flabbergasted by K-Green Trust's decision to give up its strong balance sheet by merging with CitySpring. There is no need to, in my opinion.

So, although it could be a mistake because I might not be able to see the big picture that more savvy investors are able to see, I will probably be saying good-bye to my investment in K-Green Trust, taking advantage of its higher unit price as a result of somewhat positive sentiments.

Out of sight and out of mind. Zen.

Related posts:
1. CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Divestment.
2. K-Green Trust: Zzzzzzzzzz.

Olam: Renounceable Underwritten Bond-Cum-Warrant Rights Issue.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Olam, in response to Muddy Water's claims, said that they "have more than enough capacity to meet ... repayment obligations of S$1.5 billion in the next 12 months, as well as ... likely capex of S$1-1.25 billion in the same period" and that "without raising any further debt (they) can easily meet ... debt repayment obligations and pursue ... planned Capex, in addition to meeting the on-going working capital needs." Then, why are they issung bonds-cum-rights now?

This reminds me of CitySpring Infrastructure Trust's claim a few years ago that they did not have to issue rights and that people who said they had to didn't understand their business. It could also be a coincidence that Sunny Verghese was also the chairman of CitySpring Infrastructure Trust then.

Each 1,000 shares owned will get to subscribe for 313 bonds with a face value of US$1.00 each. The bonds have a 5 year tenor and a coupon rate of 6.75%. This unsecured bond will raise some US$750m for Olam.

Each 1,000 shares owned will also be given 162 free warrants. Strike price of warrants is US$1.291. The warrants expire in 5 years and cannot be exercised in the first 3 years. This will raise US$500m for Olam if all the warrants are eventually exercised.

Full details here:
Olam International announces proposed US$750 M Renounceable Underwritten Bond-Cum-Warrant Rights Issue

Rights issues to strengthen the balance sheet is bad news for shareholders as it dilutes EPS (eventually, in this case). It also admits that the balance sheet was weak in the first instance. What are shareholders to do? It is Hobson's choice.

"Temasek is committed to take 100% of rights not subscribed by existing shareholders." Just like the case with CitySpring Infrastructure Trust, Temasek Holdings could end up enlarging its share of Olam.

 
"The Transaction is available to all its equity shareholders and provides a unique and rewarding opportunity to participate in the long term growth of the Company." This requires a leap of faith and I certainly hope for all shareholders that things improve from here.

Share price could take a hit tomorrow. $1.35 perhaps?

Related post:
Olam: A time bomb?

Olam: A time bomb?

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The high profile standoff between Muddy Waters and Olam is not about something new. Earlier this year in June, I wondered at Olam's share buy backs as well. I blogged about it and attached a section of research done by Kim Eng on the company then.



What Muddy Waters has said does make sense and Olam has to focus on its business rather than its share price.

Should Olam come to collapse (as we believe it will), its use of much-needed cash to buy back shares at this time should give rise to questions about whether fiduciary responsibilities have been breached – particularly given the possible existence of individual motivations that are not necessarily aligned with those of Olam’s lenders.  - Taken from Muddy Waters' open letter to Olam.

To read the letter in full, go to Muddy Water's website: here.

So, is Olam going kaput in time? I know that Sunny Varghese was at the helm of Cityspring Infrastructure Trust. I was not impressed with that entity and was lucky enough to exit with a small gain. Is he able to do much better with Olam?

Short sellers could home in on Olam in time and it would be interesting to see how things turn out.

Related posts:
1. Olam: Share price up on buy backs.
2. Cityspring Infrastructure Trust: Rights issue.

CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Worth another look?

Sunday, December 4, 2011



In reply to a reader, Rookie, who asked if I would consider investing in CitySpring Infrastructure Trust now:

Hi Rookie,

CitySpring at 33.5c? With a promised annualised DPU of 3.28c, the expected distribution yield is 9.79%. This annualised DPU is, of course, lower than the 4.2c in the preceding year.

The balance sheet of CitySpring has strengthened after its latest rights issue in September which saw Temasek increasing its share of the Trust substantially (reflecting a lack of confidence in the Trust by investors) from 27.9% to 37.4%.

Borrowings: S$1,324.5m
Total assets: S$2,004.5m
Gearing: 66%.


If we take out the intangibles of S$ 420.8m from total assets, gearing goes to 83.6%.

Yield has improved and gearing has come down somewhat. However, I am concerned that there would be yet another rights issue to further "strengthen its balance sheet". When? I don't know.

Regular readers know that I only like rights issues when they are distribution yield accretive. If they are not, I need some convincing that they would be good for me in some way. Whether I would buy the argument is something else.

So, to ameliorate such a risk, distribution yield has to increase while gearing remains the same before I would consider buying in. After all, I am able to get the same distribution yield or higher from AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT, Sabana REIT and even Cambridge Industrial Trust without the same level of gearing. This is purely from the perspective of yield and gearing, of course.

If people like CitySpring Infrastructure Trust's businesses or even its management for some reason and find its current yield and gearing acceptable, it is their call, of course.

See slides here: Presentation 1H FY12

Related post:
CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Rights issue.

CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Rights issue.

Thursday, June 30, 2011


I divested my investment in CitySpring Infrastructure Trust last year in October. At that time, the Trust was trading at 60.5c/unit. Long regarded the investment as a mistake, the divestment was premised upon the Trust's weak fundamentals and relatively low distribution yield.

The Trust's last done price was 53.5c/unit today and its managers announced a rights issue to raise about $210.2 million in gross proceeds to strengthen its balance sheet. Each unitholder will be asked to buy 11 new CitySpring units for every 20 held at 39c per rights unit. This rights issue is, more or less, expected with a very weak balance sheet.

I have mentioned before that rights issue to fund yield accretive purchases is good for unitholders. However, a rights issue to "strengthen balance sheet" which, basically, acknowledges a weak balance sheet in the first instance is not a good deal. They are asking for money to pay down debts. So, this rights issue lowers both the DPU and distribution yield straightaway.

A unitholder with an investment of 20 lots in the Trust would end up with 31 lots if he subscribes to his entitlement. He would still get the same total quarterly income distribution in dollar terms with 31 lots as he did with 20 lots. A lower DPU and distribution yield. Definitely not a good deal.

Good luck to existing unitholders.

Related post:
CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Thoughts on divestment.

Read announcement here.

-->

Starhub, CapitaMalls Asia and CitySpring.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

A reader asked me what's happening to Starhub and another one asked me what's happening to CapitaMalls Asia. The recent price weakness must be spooky for quite a few investors.

Starhub's uptrend is clearly broken. The support at 20dMA broke five sessions ago and closing at $2.63 today on high volume looks ominous as a long black candle was formed. $2.63 is where we find the rising 50dMA. Could we see price bouncing off the 50dMA? We could but there is no clear sign of a reversal. So, if price bounces off the 50dMA, it could be just that: a bounce.


The MFI has been forming lower highs and in a rebound, we could see it testing its downtrend resistance which approximates 50% which itself is a natural resistance.  If the MACD continues to descend towards zero, we could see it crossing into negative territory. We could see price testing the 100dMA as support then. Using Fibo lines as a guage, $2.51 is also where we find the 161.8% Fibo line. It would take a brave person to go long at this point in time. Immediate resistance at $2.72.

CapitaMalls Asia's share price closed below $2.00 once more. A long black candle was formed on high volume as price closed at $1.97. Will this counter test its low of $1.91 touched on 7 May 10? With all the momentum oscillators trending down, it could.


Time to go long? I don't think so. I would let the downtrend run its course and wait for clearer signs of a reversal. Watch out, in the meantime, for signs of stabilisation. See if the candlesticks start moving inwards away from the lower Bollinger.

I fully divested my investment in CitySpring, an investment which I have long regarded as a mistake, in early October. Kim Eng has downgraded the trust to a SELL now: Kim Eng Securities downgrades Cityspring Infrastructure Trust to Sell from Hold, cuts target price to $0.52 from $0.62 on prospect of lower distribution payouts, dilution risks.



Related post:
CapitaMalls Asia: Uptrend broken.
CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Thoughts on divestment.

$50k in annual passive income: Year end status.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The last time I wrote about my attempt to achieve an annual passive income of at least $50k was on 5 Sep when I concluded that "With Saizen REIT's contribution, I would probably exceed the target I have set for myself which is "to create a minimum of $50k in annual passive income from investments in the stock market alone."  I shared this aim here in my blog on 27 Feb 2010, more than half a year ago. Like with everything, however, this needs confirmation. Let us see what happens in December 2010." Read blog post here.

For quite some time now, my focus has been on my top three investments when I talk about building a reliable stream of passive income from the stock market.  They are Saizen REIT, AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT and LMIR.

One of my friends told me that this is inaccurate since I do not include dividends received from my other investments in the stock market such as First REIT, Suntec REIT and SPH. I must admit that I have not been fastidious that way. However, my investments in other counters are so dwarfed by my top three investments that, for the sake of simplicity, I have excluded them. Also, funds from the complete divestment of CitySpring Infrastructure Trust and Cambridge Industrial Trust as well as the privatisation of Hyflux Water Trust have largely been redeployed to AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT and Saizen REIT.

So, for this blog post, again, I will just focus on my top three investments to see if I have managed to hit the said target. I don't think we need to wait till December to see how things will turn out since both LMIR and AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT have declared their final distributions for the year.

Saizen REIT

Saizen REIT's next income distribution is in March 2011. I overlooked the fact that this REIT pays half-yearly. So, without any contribution from Saizen REIT in December, I would probably not be able to hit the $50k target this year.

Also, my estimate of an annualised 1.6c DPU for Saizen REIT was somewhat optimistic earlier in Sep and it was partly premised on the successful re-financing of YK Shintoku. A more realistic annualised DPU is probably about 1.2c if YK Shintoku's loan was refinanced successfully sooner than later. This is after learning at the AGM that continual divestment of properties in YK Shintoku is necessary in order for refinancing to be viewed more favourably by potential lenders. For me, this means a reduction of 25% in estimated passive income from this investment.

Needless to say, such a reduction is not helpful towards achieving the annual passive income target I have set but in absolute dollar terms, I still expect this REIT to contribute a lion's share of my passive income for 2011.

Read my comments here.

AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT

This REIT had a successful rights issue recently which made its existing unitholders somewhat richer. I was very pleased with the rights issue and I have not sold any of my rights units exercised at 15.5c as they will enjoy a yield of 13.4% in 2011 when the annualised DPU of 2.08c kicks in. Of course, trading at 22.5c a unit now, I have a handsome 45% capital gain (on paper) for these rights units as well.

However, the last income distribution came in weaker at DPU of 0.3968c. In my blog post of 29 Oct, I said, "This is because of the issue of 513.3 million rights units on 14 October 2010 and 7.2 million units to the Manager on 19 October 2010 for payment of the acquisition fee in relation to the acquisition of 27 Penjuru Lane. Distributable income from 27 Penjuru Lane would be included in the next distribution, not this one, since the acquisition was done in 3Q FY2011 and not in 2Q FY2011."  Read blog post here.

Of course, this does not change the fact that the lower DPU this time round (payable in December) is not going to help me hit my passive income target this year.


LMIR

Although I am still somewhat disappointed with the management, this REIT is a stable passive income generator. Their latest DPU of 1.09c is marginally higher than the previous quarter's 1.04c.  This is largely in line with my expectations, that "I expect the S$ to appreciate more robustly in future and it is unlikely that the DPU would reduce much more.  Conservatively, I estimate the DPU to be 1c per quarter or 4c per year from December 2010." Read blog post here.

Obviously, at a more conservative estimate of 4c DPU per annum, this is 20% lesser than the 5c DPU I was expecting at the start of the year.

So, based purely on these three investments, I have come up short this year with regards to my annual passive income target in the stock market.

Important development:

Recently, I have been buying more units of First REIT with a view that their recently announced acquisitions and rights issue are attractive propositions which would provide a distribution yield of 9% in 2011. Including the rights which I am entitled to and which I fully intend to accept and pay for, First REIT would rival LMIR as my third largest investment in the stock market.

So, from 1 Jan 2011, I will include dividends collected from First REIT in my calculations towards the target of $50k in annual passive income. I will continue to share my results here in my blog. Wish me luck.

Related posts:
$50k in annual passive income.
First REIT: Rights issue.

CitySpring Infrastructure Trust: Thoughts on divestment.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

On 5 Oct, OCBC reported that they were suspending coverage on CitySpring Infrastructure Trust as they see limited positive price catalysts in the near term. Furthermore, Hydro Tasmania which is owned by the Australian government is proceeding with dispute resolution and is demanding for A$6.9m in commercial risk sharing mechanism (CRSM).

For a long time now, I have regarded my investment in CitySpring Infrastructure Trust as a mistake. I blogged about it in "High Yields: Successes, failures and the in betweens."

With a quarterly DPU of 1.05c, the yield is 6.94% at the current unit price of 60.5c.  As of 30 June 2010, it had S$1,450,941,000 in borrowings against S$2,014,838,000 of total assets. This gives a gearing level of 72%. This is being optimistic as intangibles account for S$432,026,000 of total assets. Yield is not fantastic and gearing level is extremely high.

Comparing CitySpring Infrastructure Trust with K-Green Trust, we see that the latter has a similar yield but with zero gearing, it is almost immediately apparent that K-Green Trust presents a more compelling proposition.

At CitySpring Infrastructure Trust's current unit price, removing it from my frozen portfolio would result in a small loss but with the many quarters of income distribution collected, I would probably end up with a small gain.  Time to close a chapter, I think.

View slides here.

Related post:
K-Green Trust: Possibly stabilised.

High yields: Successes, failures and the in betweens.

Monday, March 1, 2010

In this post, I shall share some personal experience with high yielding trusts and provide some numbers in the process for the purpose of illustration.

High yielding trusts which have done very well for me are those which meet the selection criteria I have talked about so many times before for REITs.  Investing in such trusts is mainly about generating a steady passive income (cash flow) and to do this well, we have to look for low gearing, high yield and attractive discount to NAVs. These factors will ensure that the trusts' distributions are meaningful and sustainable.  Here are some which have done well for me:

First REIT:  I first bought some in 2007.  It had low gearing, high yield but did not have a great discount to NAV.  My initial purchase price was in the mid 70c.  The dpu was about 6c per annum.  As prices slumped during this last crisis, I bough more at 42c.  The dpu has risen to almost 8c per annum in the meantime.  First REIT didn't have to issue any rights or do any share placements as its gearing was relatively low and still is.  The unit price of the REIT now is 82c thereabouts.

LMIR:  I first bought some in 2007, not during the IPO at 80c, but after the price dropped to 70c days after.  It had low gearing, an attractive yield and trading at a discount to NAV.  During the last crisis, I bought more and the lowest price I bought more at was 18c.  The dpu is now almost 5c per annum.  It didn't have to issue any rights or do any share placements as its gearing was very low and still is.  The current unit price is about 48c or so.

Suntec REIT:  I always wanted some Suntec REIT units but looked on in amazement as the price hit $2.00 at one stage.  I bought some at $1.03 during the downtrend.  It went on in the coming months to make a new low at 50c or so, if I remember correctly.  As the price recovered, I bought more at an average price of $1.00 or so.  NAV per unit was almost $2.00. So, the discount to NAV was very attractive. The dpu is about 10c and provides a handsome 10% yield for me.  Gearing level is not very low though. 

Hyflux Water Trust:  A business trust, not a REIT.  This is an investment which many of my friends remember because I was talking about it a lot early last year.  They listened politely mostly.  I was always interested in this trust as it has regular cash flow through its exposure to the water sector in China.  In January 2009, I looked at it again in greater detail as the price was so low.  I found the yield to be almost 20% then.  Gearing was non-existent and it was trading at a very nice discount to NAV.  The unit price was 30c or so at that time.  I went on a buying spree.

I did not keep all of these investments bought at low prices. I sold most of them for very nice capital gains, cycling the funds into laggard counters like Healthway Medical to make more money.  I kept, on average, 10% of my original positions in each of these investments to collect passive income in perpetuity.  It would have been nice if I had been able to keep my investments in these trusts in full and yet have more money to invest in laggard counters but, unfortunately, my resources are limited.

As you could probably tell, I was not always rigorous in making sure that all three criteria I talked about were met in choosing a trust.  In part, such trusts did not present themselves all the time and I had to make do with the best choices available.  This last crisis, however, was an opportunity of a lifetime.

It was also because I was not rigorous that in my early years with trusts, I made many mistakes in my choices. What we must always remember is not to focus solely on yields.  Also, do not invest in anything without doing our own FA. Here were some of my mistakes:

MPSF: It just got suspended today. This must have been my worst mistake. I listened to a very young "analyst" who said it gave upwards of 10% in yield and that the yield was sustainable. I invested a five figure sum without doing any analysis of my own. I later found out that MPSF invests in other REITs in Australia and as some of these REITs are private in nature, they could gear up to 80%! MSPF froze all distributions with the credit crisis but what is worse is the complicated situation it is in with so many cans of worms. There is no passive income for unitholders and, as far as I can see, there is no clarity as to its future. Must remember not to be swayed by sweet talking analysts. Always do our own homework.

FSL Trust: A friend introduced me to shipping trusts saying that I should diversify my passive income stream. He also introduced me to Rickmers and PST but I only have a position in FSL Trust. I still get passive income from the cash flow generated by its business and I receive  >8% yield per year based on my average price. High gearing in excess of 100% and the fact that its assets depreciate whether or not the economy does well make this a mistake for me.

CitySpring: This is a business trust. I was emboldened by the fact that this has the backing of Temasek Holdings. It had very high gearing but the management (headed by Sunny Verghese) said that they did not have to issue rights and people who thought they had to didn't understand their business. A few months later, they issued rights. The yield plunged and unitholders became poorer as they subscribed to the rights. It yields an average of 6.5% per annum for me.

There are a few others but the essence of the negative experience is more or less the same. For examples, with FCOT (previously Allco REIT) and MI-REIT (now AMPS AMP Capital Industrial REIT), I overlooked their high gearing levels at the time of purchase.  This is also a reason why I tell people to be cautious with Cambridge Industrial Trust (CIT) which I am vested in as well as its gearing is still in excess of 40%.

As creating a significant stream of passive income is still a very important objective for me, trusts with high yields must still play a part in the grand scheme of things. Rather than remember the pain and avoid these trusts altogether, I choose to remember the pain and find a way to achieve mastery over them. I hope that by freely sharing what I have realised to be the right way to approach REITs (and other forms of trusts) here in my blog, other investors who might not be in the know would not have to suffer like I did.


Monthly Popular Blog Posts

All time ASSI most popular!

 
 
Bloggy Award